Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:29:47 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@freebsd.org> Cc: ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw cached ucred patch Message-ID: <20040602152947.B17332@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040602221443.GA92431@freefall.freebsd.org>; from csjp@freebsd.org on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 03:14:43PM -0700 References: <20040602043537.GA42327@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040602135155.GA31642@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040602213515.GA90619@freefall.freebsd.org> <40BE4BFE.70204@freebsd.org> <20040602221443.GA92431@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 03:14:43PM -0700, Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > > I understand what you are saying. The only real other choice > would be to copy out the entire cr_groups array. Do you know > if this copy would be more expensive then the mutex lock/unlock > associated with grabbing a reference to the ucred? i bet the copy it would be cheaper almost on any architecture -- it is only 64 bytes anyways, with these sizes what kills you in memory accesses is the latency, not the throughput. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040602152947.B17332>